SLAVE-TRADE. 



the firft, there were 193 votes for gradual abolition, and 

 125 for immediate ; and in the fecond, there were 230 for 

 gradual, and 85 for no abolition at all. In this ftate the 

 queftion was left till the 23d of April, when Mr. Dundas 

 (afterwards lord Melville) came forward and propofed 

 a plan conformable with the refolutions of the houfe juft 

 mentioned. The outlines of it, however, were oppofed by 

 Mefl'rs. Pitt, Fox, and Wilberforcc, not only as being 

 very defedtive, but as built upon falfe data. The bufinels 

 was accordingly adjourned to the 25th. On that day, 

 Mr. Dundas brought forward the fubjeft again. He con- 

 fidered that eight years ought to be allowed the planters 

 to (lock themfelves with negroes, and therefore moved that 

 the year 1800 (hould be the epoch, after which no more 

 Haves fhould be imported from Africa in Britifh veflels to 

 the Weft Indies. Lord Mornington (now marquis Wel- 

 ledey), in a mod brilliant fpeech, moved an amendment, 

 which was, that the year 1793 fhould be fubftituted for 

 that of 1800. There appeared, on a divifion, to be 158 

 for Mr. Duiidas's motion, and 109 for the amendment. 

 On the 27th of April the fubjeft was refumed in the houfe. 

 Mr. Dundas propofed the year 1800, as before, and lord 

 Mornington the year 1795. His lardfhip's motion was 

 again loft, but by a lefs majority than on the former occa- 

 fion, ii;'z. by 161 to 121, when fir Edward Knatchbull ftruck 

 out a middle line, by propofing the year 1796, which 

 motion was carried by a majority of 151 to 132. The 

 gradual abolition having been thus agreed upon for 1796, 

 a committee of the commons carried the refolution to the 

 lords. On the 8th of May the lords met to confider it, 

 when, cruel to relate, a motion was made by lard Stormont, 

 on the part of the planters, merchants, and other interefted 

 perfons, to hear new evidence. This, after fome little 

 oppofition, was acceded to. On the 15th of May, the 

 firft witnefs on this fide of the queftion was introduced ; 

 and on the 5th of June, when only feven witnefles had been 

 examined on the fame fide, all further examination was 

 poftponed to the next feflion. 



Nothing could be more diftrefling to the abolitionifts 

 than the determination of the lords now mentioned ; firft, 

 becaufe there was no faying how many, even years, the 

 hearing of evidence there might take ; and fecondly, be- 

 caufe they (the abolitionifts) had the laborious work to do 

 over again, of finding out and keeping up a refpeftable 

 body of witnefles on their own fide of the queftion. This 

 latter work was eflentially neceflary ; for it was impofTible 

 to allow the perfons interefted to throw in a weight of 

 teftimony for the furtherance of their own caufe, and not 

 to take means to counteraft it. Mr. Clarkfon, therefore, 

 fct out again in the month of .July, on his old errand. Dr. 

 Dickfon, the gentleman before-mentioned, left London 

 about the fame time, in order to aflift him. He was to 

 take a different route, which had been before fettled. 

 They were very fuccefsful in their refpeAive journeys, and 

 both returned in the month of February, 1793. The houfe 

 of commons was then fitting. The only itep to be taken 

 there (but this was eflentially neceflary), was to bring 

 before it, in fome part or other of the feflion, its own vote of 

 the former year, by which the flave-trade was to be abo- 

 lifhed in 1796, in order that this vote might be reconfidcrcd 

 and renewed. Accordingly Mr. Wilberforce moved the 

 houfe upon the fubjeft. It it only neceflary to ilate, that 

 his motion was moit furioufly oppoled, and aftually loft by 

 amajority of 61 to 53. By this determination the commons 

 aftually refufed to fanftion their own vote In tliis dif- 

 trelTing fituation, Mr. Wilberforcc fcarccly knew what to 

 do. H« was not, however, to be difmayed by one ub- 



expefted defeat. He refolved, therefore, that he would 

 not allow the fefTion to pafs without trying the queftion 

 in fome other fhape. Accordingly, in the month of May, 

 he moved for leave to bring in a bill to abolifh that part of 

 the trade by which the Britifh merchants fupplied foreigners 

 with flaves. His motion was carried, but only by a ma- 

 jority of 7 ; and, alas ! on the third reading, it was loft by 

 a majority of 31 to 29 ! During all this time the exami- 

 nation of witnefles had been going on in the houfe of lords. 

 Only feven witnefles, however, had been heard there in the 

 courfe of the whole feflion. 



After this moft cruel fefTion, the abolitionifts were at a 

 lofs how to aft for the advantage of their caufe. One 

 meafure, however, was obviouQy neceffary, viz. to endeavour 

 to keep up a refpeftable body of evidence to oppofe that 

 which fhould be heard againtt the abolition in the lords. 

 For this purpofe, Mr. Clarkfon, at the requeft of the com- 

 mittee, once more traverfed the kingdom. He began his 

 journey in September, and returned in February, 1794. 

 Mr. Wilberforce, in the interim, moved in the commons for 

 leave to renew his former bill for the abolition of the foreign 

 flave-trade, as carried on by Britifh fubjefts. He carried 

 it, though with great difficulty, in all its ftages, through 

 the houft of commons ; but it was almoft direftly loft in 

 the houfe of lords. In this latter houfe only two evidences 

 had been examined in the courfe of the feffion. At this 

 time Mr. Clarkfon was in fuch a wretched ftate of health, 

 as to be unable to lend any farther afftftance to the com- 

 mittee. The inceffant labour of body and mind for fo 

 many years, aggravated by anxiety and difappointments, 

 had made a very ferious inroad upon his conllitution. His 

 nervous fy ftem had been literally fhattered to pieces ; his hear- 

 ing, memory, and voice, were nearly gone. He was, in fhort, 

 utterly incapable of any farther exertion; and he was there- 

 fore obliged, though very reluftantly, to be borne out of the 

 field, where he had placed the great honour and glory of 

 his life. The queftion was now in a very defperate ftate, 

 for if the houfe of commons would not renew its own refo- 

 lution, and if the lords would not abolifh even the foreign 

 part of the flave-trade, what hope was there of fuccefs ? 

 But neither, however, were Mr. Wilberforce nor the com- 

 mittee to be deterred by the profpeft. They determined 

 never to abandon the caufe. Accordingly Mr. Wilberforce 

 moved in the commons, in the felTion of 179J, for leave to 

 bring in a bill for the abolition of the flave-trade. This 

 motion was now neceffary, and juftifiable on that account, 

 if the trade, according to a former refolution of that houfe, 

 was to ceafe in 1796 ; but it was loft by a fmall majority. 



In the feflion of 1796, Mr. Wilberforce refolved upon 

 trying the queftion again, but in an entire new form. He 

 moved that the flave-trade be abolifhed in a limited time, but 

 without affigning to its duration any fpecific date. He 

 wlfticd the houfe to agree to this as a general principle. 

 After much oppofition the principle was acknowle^lgcd ; 

 but when, in confequcnce of this acknowledgment of it, 

 he brought in a bill, and attempted to introduce into one of 

 the claufes the year 1797, as the period when the trade 

 fhould ceafe, he loft it by a majority of 74 to ■]«. 



He judged it prudent, after mature confiiieration, to let 

 the fefTion of 1797 pafs without any parliamentary notice of 

 the fubjeft, but in tliat of 1798 he renewed his motion for 

 abolition in a limited time. This, however, met with the 

 fame fate as the former. 



In 1799, undifmaycd by former defeats, he tried the fame 



motion again, when there appeared for it 74, and againft it 



82 votes. He determined, however, that tlie remainder of 



the feflion fheuld not pafs without an eff'ort to obtain fome- 



R 2 thing, 



